MMA & Monopsony: MMA Fighters Win Class Certification Bout in Employment Monopolization Case

By: Luke Hasskamp & Molly Donovan (The Antitrust Attorney/Bona Law)
In another significant case involving labor monopsony, a federal court in Nevada has ruled in favor of MMA athletes, alleging their promoter’s misuse of monopsony power in the market for acquiring fighters’ services. The court granted class certification to MMA fighters who accused their promoter of binding them to exclusive contracts, restricting their mobility, and suppressing their earnings from fighting bouts. The case in question is Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW, 2023 WL 5085064, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138702 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2023).
The Context: MMA, a combat sport that combines boxing, wrestling, karate, and other martial arts, involves competitions between fighters in timed rounds, where victory can be achieved through points, knockout, or submission (when the opponent concedes due to extreme pain).
Between 2010 and 2017, Zuffa (the defendant) promoted MMA bouts under the trade name Ultimate Fighting Championship. During this period, Zuffa considered fighters as independent contractors and compensated them on a per-bout basis: one payment for participating in a bout (“show” payment) and another payment of a similar amount for a victory. This compensation model was prevalent among all MMA fighters promoted by Zuffa, except for a very small group of top fighters who sometimes received additional payments, such as a percentage of event revenues. Fighters were responsible for their own training and skill upkeep expenses.
The contracts between Zuffa and the fighters included “exclusion clauses,” obliging athletes to fight exclusively for Zuffa. Additionally, these contracts contained clauses that granted Zuffa significant control over fighters, including (i) exclusive automatic contract extensions; (ii) the exclusive authority to release fighters; and (iii) the right to match offers from competing promoters upon contract expiration, effectively requiring fighters to stay with Zuffa if Zuffa matched a competing offer…
Featured News
Alaska Airlines’ Hawaiian Acquisition Faces Antitrust Scrutiny
Dec 6, 2023 by
CPI
Ulmer & Greensfelder Merge to Form UB Greensfelder
Dec 6, 2023 by
CPI
Apple’s iMessage May Be Exempt from New EU Regulations
Dec 6, 2023 by
CPI
UK Watchdog Warns Firms on AI Privacy Compliance
Dec 6, 2023 by
CPI
FTC Mounts Second Challenge to Microsoft’s Activision Buy Despite Closed Deal
Dec 6, 2023 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Horizontal Competition: Mergers, Innovation & New Guidelines
Nov 30, 2023 by
CPI
Innovation in Merger Control
Nov 30, 2023 by
CPI
Making Sense of EU Merger Control: The Need for Limiting Principles
Nov 30, 2023 by
CPI
Sustainability Agreements in the EU: New Paths to Competition Law Compliance
Nov 30, 2023 by
CPI
Merger Control and Sustainability: A New Dawn or Nothing New Under the Sun?
Nov 30, 2023 by
CPI